SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise – UV declined, TSI constant

Between 2004 and 2007, the Solar Irradiance Monitor (blue line) measured a decrease in ultraviolet radiation (less than 400 nanometers) that was a factor of four to six larger than expected (black line). In the visible part of the spectrum (400 to 700 nanometers), SIM showed a slight increase in comparison to what was expected. Measurements (red) from another ultraviolet radiation-sensing instrument called SOLSTICE compare well with those from SIM. Note: different scales are used for values at wavelengths less and more than 242 nanometers (see left and right axes respectively). Credit: Joanna Haigh/Imperial College London

The two instruments are part of an ongoing effort to monitor variations in solar output that could affect Earth’s climate. Both instruments measure aspects of the sun’s irradiance, the intensity of the radiation striking the top of the atmosphere.

Instruments similar to TIM have made daily irradiance measurements of the entire solar spectrum for more than three decades, but the SIM instrument is the first to monitor the daily activity of certain parts of the spectrum, a measurement scientists call solar spectral irradiance.

A photograph of the Solar Irradiance Monitor. Credit: LASP

In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.

“We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle, but now we have started to model that possibility because of the SIM results,” said Robert Cahalan, the project scientist for SORCE and the head of the climate and radiation branch at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

Cahalan, as well as groups of scientists from the University of Colorado at Boulder and Johns Hopkins University, presented research at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco in December that explored the climate implications of the recent SIM measurements.

Cahalan’s modeling, for example, suggests that the sun may underlie variations in stratospheric temperature more strongly than currently thought. Measurements have shown that stratospheric temperatures vary by about 1 °C (1.8 °F) over the course of a solar cycle, and Cahalan has demonstrated that inputting SIM’s measurements of spectral irradiance into a climate model produces variations of that same magnitude.

Without inclusion of SIM data, the model produces stratospheric temperature variations only about a fifth as strong as would be needed to explain observed stratospheric temperature variations. “We may have a lot more to learn about how solar variability works, and how the sun might influence our climate,” Cahalan said.

Measuring Variation

As recently as the 1970s, scientists assumed that the sun’s irradiance was unchanging; the amount of energy it expels was even called the “solar constant.” However, instruments similar to TIM and SIM have made clear that the sun’s output actually fluctuates in sync with changes in the sun’s magnetic field.

Indeed, TIM and its predecessor instruments, whose records of irradiance began in 1978, show that the sun’s output varies by about 0.1 percent as the sun cycles through periods of high and low electromagnetic activity every eleven years or so. In practice, this cycling means the sun’s brightness, as measured by TIM, goes up a bit when large numbers of sunspots and accompanying bright spots called faculae are present on the sun, yet goes down slightly when sunspots and faculae are sparse, like they have been in the last few years as the sun has gone through an unusually quiet period.

However, there is a critical difference between the SIM and TIM, explains Jerry Harder, the lead SIM instrument scientist and a researcher at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at the University of Colorado in Boulder. While the TIM lumps all wavelengths — including infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light — into one overall measurement, the SIM isolates and monitors specific portions of the spectrum.

Notably, this makes SIM the first space-based instrument capable of continuously monitoring the visible and near-infrared portion, parts of the spectrum that are particularly important for the climate. SIM also offers the most comprehensive view of the individual components that make up the sun’s total solar irradiance to date.

Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected. Climatologists have generally thought that the various part of the spectrum would vary in lockstep with changes in total solar irradiance.

However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.

The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.

The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate.

Climate Consequences?

Some climatologists, including Judith Lean of the United States Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, remain skeptical of the SORCE SIM measurements. “I strongly suspect the SIM trends are instrumental, not solar,” said Lean, noting that instrumental drift has been present in every instrument that has tracked ultraviolet wavelengths to date.

“If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

It would also imply that the sun’s contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates.

However, the surprising SIM measurements correspond with a period of unusually long and quiescent solar minimum that extended over 2007 to 2009. It may not be representative of past or future solar cycles, solar scientists caution.

Researchers will surely continue puzzling over the surprising SIM results for some time, but there is already considerable agreement on one point: that the need for continuous SIM and TIM measurements going forward has grown more urgent.

Modeling studies are showing that our climate depends critically on the true solar spectral variations. “If we don’t have the instruments up there to watch this closely, we could be arguing about spectral irradiance and climate for decades,” said Cahalan.

A new TIM instrument is slated to launch on the Glory satellite this February, but a replacement for the SORCE SIM instrument — called the Total and Spectral Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS) — likely won’t fly until 2014 or 2015. This could create a gap between the current SIM and its replacement, a situation that would present a significant obstacle to identifying any possible longer-term trend in solar spectral irradiances, and thus to nailing down the sun’s role in long-term climate change.

“Both instruments — TIM and SIM — are absolutely critical for understanding how climate works. We neglect either of them at our peril,” said Cahalan.

It is a confusing graph. It shows how much the spectral emission haschanged between 2004 and 2007. Since solar activity was decreasing oneexpected UV to decrease. Instead it increased. The increase was offsetby a decrease in IR, leaving TSI almost constant. That the near UVgoes up when solar activity goes down I pointed out some time ago[before the LASP people noticed it], see the lower two panels ofhttp://www.leif.org/research/Erl70.png (provided below)

I agree with Leif that the plot is confusing. It is a difference plot, and one would like to know the percentage changes of UV radiation as compared to some kind of average.
Is this a 1% effect, or is it a 10% effect or even more?
The two instruments, SIM and SOLSTICE, differ by a factor two and more in the range where they overlap. This is called “compare well”. One could also conclude that the error bars exceed +- 50% of the difference plot values. So, it could indeed be instrumental problems first.

“If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,” ………..said Gavin Schmidt

So then, as I understand it the thrust of this article basically suggests that we don’t know it all yet. Indeed much more research is needed before we can fully understand the behaviour of the sun and how its subtle changes might influence earth and its climate. A position at odds with the dogmatic view that the science is settled, whereas in fact all that has been decided is the politics. The latter point going some way towards explaining the true motivations of Messers Mann, Jones and others who have become politicised beings rather than genuine open minded scientists.

I have benefited immensely from following the dialogue on this blog over past months, it is a pleasure to wish Anthony, all guest contributers and respondents the very best of Christmas’s, may you all find joy in the New Year.

NASA now reckon that global warming is going to take the edge off the next ice age. But remember, CO2 still drives the climate, but only when there are no other “natural variations” to “overpower” it.

“Earth’s orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing “orbital mechanics” force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. (Please see for more details.) Thus, changing Earth’s exposure to sunlight forces climate to change. According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.
However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface.”

It seems that over the same period 2004 to 2007 ozone quantities above 45km increased but below 45km they decreased.

Would anyone care to comment since ozone trends (and thus temperatures) are supposed to be linked to solar variability especially in the stratosphere ?

I think the issue of stratospheric temperature trends is critical because that is what dictates pressure distribution in the troposphere.

Furthermore there is nothing different now from what was observed in the MWP (active sun and poleward/zonal jets) in the LIA (quiet sun and equatorward/meridional jets) in the late 20th century (active sun and poleward/zonal jets) and today (quiet sun and equatorward/meridional jets).

Thus, resolve this issue to discredit AGW completely and perhaps also overturn previous assumptions about the effect of CFCs.

I think we will find that a cooling stratosphere at a time of active sun and a warming stratosphere at a time of quiet sun are entirely natural phenomena.

It has to be so otherwise jets could not go more poleward when the sun is more active. That requires a cooling stratosphere for a more positive polar vortex. A warming stratosphere ( netted out globally not just at the equator) must always send the jets equatorward yet we do not see a warming stratosphere unless the sun is quiet.

We are getting close now and the change in solar behaviour is the best thing that could have happened for climate diagnostics.

“If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

It would also imply that the sun’s contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates.

If the SIM measurements were correct thus the assumptions installed in the models incorrect then the affect attributed to those assumptions would need be attributed to another influence. Hence indication would be something is going on which we do not understand (nothing new about that) and therefore a leap to suggestion of greater human contribution on the other side of the coin is nothing but simple unfounded rhetoric / propaganda stream.

No. You Are not confused at all. You just need to learn how the RC reasoning works. Every grain of new knowledge, no matter how poorly understood, always points to AGW being “worse than we thought. By next year they will have models predicting that the globe exploded from heat shock five years ago.

“If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,” said Gavin Schmidt”

A greater amount of energy reaching the surface in some wavelengths most likely does not affect the climate at all because what matters most for climate is the amount of energy that gets into the oceans.

If ozone changes in the atmosphere alter the tropospheric pressure distribution for a change in total cloudiness and albedo as seems to be the case then that would dwarf everything else by regulating the amount of energy that the oceans receive and absorb.

I thought that the hypothesised solar influence was not irradiance, but solar magnetic activity. So whatever Schmidt says about irradiance is not really the point, although in combination with other changes it would obviously make a difference.

Under the graph is written: “Between 2004 and 2007, the Solar Irradiance Monitor (blue line) measured a decrease in ultraviolet radiation (less than 400 nanometers) that was a factor of four to six larger than expected (black line).

Leif Svalgaard comments at the end of the article:
“This is legit. It is a confusing graph. It shows how much the spectral emission has
changed between 2004 and 2007. Since solar activity was decreasing one
expected UV to decrease. Instead it increased.”

We still don’t know how UV will develop come a long Dalton-like minimum as we haven’t experienced one since inventing these instruments. Is there a possibility that it follows the visible radiation with a time lag, so both visible and UV radiation go down during a grand minimum?

Robin is right, I can’t reconcile Leif’s comment with the graph. I also don’t understand why a decrease in the shortest UV wavelengths would increase Stratospheric warming or O3 quantities above 45km. Stephen Wilde, I think hits the nail on the head, but I don’t understand the mechanism in the upper stratosphere. Can you explain Stephen?

Climate model assumptions might be wrong? Ya think? What are the odds?

If solar fluctuations have an impact on climate, what are world governments going to do to control that? Who can they tax and what can they legislate? How about turning on and off the CO2 pump to compensate? /sarc

What about longer and shorter wavelengths, do they have no effect at all?
We cook with Microwave ovens everyday…..A microwave oven works by passing non-ionizing microwave radiation, usually at a frequency of 2.45 gigahertz (GHz)—a wavelength of 122 millimetres (4.80 in)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven
…and what about Induction and other phenomena?. The world it is only what we can see with our eyes (around 500 nm).
Excuse me, I am just the “Fool on the Hill” just watching the world spinning around.

“If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

========

Ah, applying the new scientific method of Climatology, “If observed data conflicts with model output (theory), then the observed data must be in error somehow because the theory has to be right – the model output says so.”

It’s my understanding that only very recently climate models have incorporate “top-down” solar processes. Most only include TSI as the solar variable. It seems strange that Gavin Schmidt could make any statement regarding model outputs and these new UV measurements.

Interesting, considering that strong UV stimulates plankton to create clouds according to another NASA publicationThe study finds that in summer when the Sun beats down on the top layer of ocean where plankton live, harmful rays in the form of ultraviolet (UV) radiation bother the little plants. UV light also gives sunburn to humans.

When plankton are bothered, or stressed by UV light, their chemistry takes over.

……DMS then filters from the ocean into the air, where it breaks down again to form tiny dust-like particles. These tiny particles are just the right size for water to condense on, which is the beginning of how clouds are formed. So, indirectly, plankton help create more clouds, and more clouds mean that less direct light reaches the ocean surface. This relieves the stress put on plankton by the Sun’s harmful UV rays.

A contribution to albedo similar to the effect expected from galactic cosmic rays.
So the answer to Gavin is to hold his horses and ask the plankton.

“If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

“W Abbott says:
December 22, 2010 at 4:18 am
Robin is right, I can’t reconcile Leif’s comment with the graph. I also don’t understand why a decrease in the shortest UV wavelengths would increase Stratospheric warming or O3 quantities above 45km. Stephen Wilde, I think hits the nail on the head, but I don’t understand the mechanism in the upper stratosphere. Can you explain Stephen?”

I can only refer you to this and hope I’m not boring those who have already seen it:

Yes it is confusing. The plot shows positive differences for the UV region and negative for the infrared, and agrees with Leif’s plots. The explanation says the opposite, decrease in UV and increase in IR. Very sloppy in either case.

“If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,” ………..said Gavin Schmidt

Step 1: Maintain that the science is settled.
Step 2: Use computer models of climate as the summum bonum of climate science.
Step 3: Recognize new research in the real world conflicts with model assumptions.
Step 4: Skip next step.
Step 5: Announce planned revisions to computer model (summum bonum).
Step 6: Avoid questions about Step 5.
Step 7: Bash “Deniers.”
Step 8: Incorporate new research in climate model & interpret it as supporting AGW.
Step 9: Maintain that the science is settled.

Stephen Wilde says:
December 22, 2010 at 5:41 am
………..
What happens in upper stratosphere is important, I’d say very important.
Polar vortex in the Arctic often is split up, and this appears to affect not only stratosphere but troposphere too. In contrast the Antarctica’s vortex is pretty solid, only one case of sudden stratospheric warming SSW was recorded since 1950 (in 2002, science is puzzled by the event, but there is an explanation for it).
Polar vortex is frequently (but not all the time) under the influence of the geomagnetic field, I suspect it depends on the extent of ionisation.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF-PV.htm

Prof. Haigh has previously authored journal articles suggesting that the way the sun influences climate is that at solar minima (and likely longer periods of inactivity as well) there is a greater reduction in UV than in total radiation. This reduction causes less ozone to be created in the stratosphere, which in turn makes the stratosphere marginally cooler. In turn, this allows cooler weather from the poles to drift a bit toward the equator, thus causing an overall cooling for the earth as a whole.

It seems that this new evidence contradicts the earlier idea. Now, it seems, we have MORE UV when the sun in inactive. If Haigh’s earlier idea is accurate — and I may well not understand her work well enough — then we should have been seeing WARMING in the stratosphere and a warming earth. But the satellite measures don’t show warming.

So either Haigh’s first theory is wrong; or the new measurements are wrong; or there is another mechanism going on — perhaps for some reason the increased ozone might cause more cloudiness, thus causing COOLING?

This is real science, and real science goes through periods of confusion before what is happening is more fully understood. Or maybe it’s just me that doesn’t understand. I’d like to hear from some experts on there three possibilities just noted.

Cahalan’s modeling, for example, suggests that the sun may underlie variations in stratospheric temperature more strongly than currently thought. Measurements have shown that stratospheric temperatures vary by about 1 °C (1.8 °F) over the course of a solar cycle, and Cahalan has demonstrated that inputting SIM’s measurements of spectral irradiance into a climate model produces variations of that same magnitude.

Without inclusion of SIM data, the model produces stratospheric temperature variations only about a fifth as strong as would be needed to explain observed stratospheric temperature variations. “We may have a lot more to learn about how solar variability works, and how the sun might influence our climate,” Cahalan said.

If I read this right it was known fact that the stratosphere varied by 1C over a sunspot cycle. At the same time the vaunted GCMs only produced 0.2C of stratosphere variation.

Ahem. The model was then known to be flawed before the SIM data became available by the mere fact that measured stratospheric temperature change didn’t agree with modeled output.

Must be another one of those travesties that don’t make it onto the IPCC sheeple summary.

I told you about a year ago on a different board that you guys were clueless as to what was really happening on the sun, and your models reminded of the human genome scientists before the genome were sequenced (I was one – we were wrong on many fundamental points). Solar guys will be proved wrong again and again over the coming decade, I expect. Nothing like data.

At the beginning of the computational era, computers were a good thing for kids, as they had to write their own programs and it helped them, for example, to learn the Pythagoras Theorem while writing a program to solve the equation of that theorem.
However, now, they have stopped thinking because everything is already done, so with X-Box, Twii, or whatever games, pornography, etc all these gadgets are like drugs for kids, specially for these Nasa kids.

What seems to be happening is that there is a disjunction in the ozone responses at around 45km. Below that level ozone does indeed decline when the sun is quiet as expected. Above that level ozone increases which is unexpected.

That disjunction can be resolved if one acknowledges ozone creation as declining in the lower levels (ozone reducing) when the sun is quiet whilst ozone destruction declines in the higher levels (ozone increasing) when the sun is quiet. That produces the observed data.

Now more ozone is associated with warming so in theory those changes should give cooling below 45km but they do not.

I have previously posted a link that says that the stratosphere overall stopped cooling in the mid 90s and may now be warming slightly despite the decreasing ozone below 45km.

That issue can be resolved by proposing that the processes above 45km are dominant (now more ozone and so warming) with the result that the levels below 45km are forced to warm up too despite the reducing ozone below 45km.

The opposite when the sun is more active.

All that fits observations perfectly and provides the necessary reverse sign response to solar forcing to cause equatorward shifting jets (requiring a warmer stratosphere) when the sun is quieter.

The shifting of the jets then alters cloud amounts and albedo to change the amount of energy entering the oceans and thereby skew the El Nino/La Nina dominance in favour of net warming or net cooling of the troposphere.

Interesting factoid: OZONE IS ALWAYS FORMED IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE AS HIGH ENERGY UV HITS IT!

Thus the “ozone hole” is ONLY a matter of degree, not actual dissapearance of Ozone.

AND, if you look at standard Meteorology books, you will find that Ozone and it’s subsquent decay, are part of the energy transfer from the sun into the overall atmosphere, and thus the incoming UV does have an effect.

To whit: If the UV goes down, less energy into the ATM, goes up, more.

So indeed the total solar irradiance needs to account for all of these.

“If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

It would also imply that the sun’s contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even SMALLER than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates.

Stephen Wilde says:
December 22, 2010 at 1:40 am
My insisting on the following and posted, many times here in WUWT has been fruitful:What if the water cycle is not closed but opened?. During summer time above the pole and due to increased radiation, atmosphere’s oxygen is turned into Ozone (O3), which during winter time and specially when there are proton flares from the sun or increased cosmic rays, as during solar minimums (mainly composed of protons-90%-, which, btw, we must remember are Hydrogen Nucleii), then these react with ozone to produce water 2H+ O3=H2O+O2 and increase the “Ozone Hole” once again ….

It has been theorized for quite some time that the Sun’s changing influence on the stratosphere is rather readily measured. I can’t see where this is new news. What is important to “feet on the ground” measurements is whether or not stratospheric temperature changes have any influence on the troposphere and our Earth’s quite powerful intrinsic drivers of tropospheric temperatures. My hunch is that Earth’s overwhelmingly stronger and noisier intrinsic mechanisms bury any stratospheric influence in our tropospheric temperature noise.

This is very significant. Higher frequency light carries more energy than lower frequency light, (E=hF) so reductions in UV band light by a factor of 6 results in a sizeable reduction in the amount of solar energy being delivered to the Earth…

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101221/D9K8JAUG0.htmlTransportation experts said that after many years without heavy snowfall, underinvestment has left Heathrow and dozens of other airports across Britain and Ireland without enough equipment or personnel to cope with big storms.

Well, yeah… why would they invest in snowfall equipment when winters in Britain were a “thing of the past?” Unintended consequences of pretending that you know things that you don’t.

Some of you might be interested that DR. Svalgaard only yesterday (on SC24 blog) stated: I think there will be several low cycles, but this is guesswork.
May be he has come round to recognise value of my formula:http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
I doubt it, but you never know.

Despite Lorenz and Mandelbrot, however, long-term climate cycles, patterns, remain largely foreseeable. Over some 2.6 million years to date, recurrent Pleistocene glaciations have averaged 102,000 years, separated by interglacial remissions of median 12,250 years. Continental ice-sheets began thinning some 14,400 years before present (YBP), inducing our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch which if not for an anomalous 1,500-year Younger Dryas “cold shock” would have ended about AD 450, coincident with the Fall of Rome.

Whether recent solar inactivity presages a 40-year “dead sun” Dalton Minimum similar to that of 1790 – 1830 or a 70-year Maunder Minimum analogous to 1645 – 1715, when Louis XIV’s wine glazed over in his Palace of Versailles, geophysical history strongly hints a pending regression to Ice Time. Warmists’ fixation on ignorant and genuinely stupid AGW reflects a societal death-wish akin to that of murderous jihadi terrorists whose vicious “1010” mindset such power-hungry elitists’ academic-bureaucratic-political Iron Triangle will stop at nothing to endorse.

This is wrong: There are laws in nature. Randomness it is a justification of ignorance, an argument for the politician to cheat the fool, or an elaborated lie by a conspirator, but never science.
You choose: Jump into an abyss and save yourself by randomness.

“anna v says:
Yes it is confusing. The plot shows positive differences for the UV region and negative for the infrared, and agrees with Leif’s plots. The explanation says the opposite, decrease in UV and increase in IR. Very sloppy in either case.
If we are to vote, I vote for Leif’s explanation.”
============================================
So back to the graph.

1. Supposing the 0-axis is: ‘Solar Irradiation in 2004′.
The black line: ‘EXPECTED difference in spectral irradiance from 2004 to 2007′.
The blue line: ‘MEASURED difference in spectral irradiance from 2004 to 2007′.
While a decrease was expected, the black line gives positive values.
So, the best interpretation of the graph seems that the black line gives ‘the AMOUNT OF DECREASE in spectral irradiation from 2004 to 2007′.
The graph thus shows much more decrease in UV than expected and a slight increase in visible light.
2. Leif’s statement, that a decrease was expected and an increase was measured, creates a problem.
Whatever the vertical axis exactly means, an increase and a decrease in UV should be on opposing sides of the 0-line.

Wilky, quantify the reduction. Let me see the maths. And let’s be precise. You mean “…at the outer most edge of Earth’s atmosphere”. What gets to the top of our heads is a whole nother set of maths with so many variables you would run out of letters in the expression.

OK, the caption above is confusing.
Ffrom the figures in the publication, accompanying the abstract the description of the first plot reads:The difference (2004–2007) in solar spectral irradiance (W m−2 nm−1) derived from SIM data4 (in blue), SOLSTICE data8 (in red) and from the Lean model5 (in black). Different scales are used for values at wavelengths less and more than 242 nm…

Now the plot can be understood as consistent with diminishing UV since it is the difference between two dates (2004 -2007) and not the usual anomalies we have been perverted by climate scientists to expect. Positive means 2007 is less than 2004.

So I see a conflict with the plots Leif supplied above, which show an increase in UV in the same interval for some part of the spectrum, if I am reading them correctly.

“If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

Where I am from, data trumps models any day. This example illustrates the problem with climate science, Data Doesn’t Matter!

One thing very important in this statement is the revaluation that the climate models take into account solar activity. I have never seen any reference in climate modeling that shows the effects of the Solar Cycle. We are told over and over that the sun does not matter! When did this change and now solar variability is part of the global climate equation? Every climate model I have seen, showed an increase in global temp through the solar cycles without even a blip. So now the sun is important? Who knows maybe next it will be cloud cover, solar magnetic fields, or cosmic radiation ….. one can only hope.

Re: ““We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle, but now we have started to model that possibility because of the SIM results,” said Robert Cahalan, the project scientist for SORCE and the head of the climate and radiation branch at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.”

Ad hoc modeling is great for public relations, but in science, theorists are supposed to also consider competing models when they observe such a fundamental error in their model.

Re: “As recently as the 1970s, scientists assumed that the sun’s irradiance was unchanging; the amount of energy it expels was even called the “solar constant.” However, instruments similar to TIM and SIM have made clear that the sun’s output actually fluctuates in sync with changes in the sun’s magnetic field.”

This is the characteristic behavior of the plasma glow discharge in the laboratory. This is what a Crooks Tube with a spherical geometry will do when the current density (delivered by an electron drift) is altered. Increase or decrease the current density, which we would observe as an increase in the magnetic field, and you can expect the spectra to change.

We all intuitively know, without any scientific degree, that as you pass electrical current through an object, its temperature and color will change. It is the thermonuclear core model for the Sun which distracts people from latching onto the simplest inference.

The entire HR diagram is a contorted view of the fundamental operating modes of a plasma. This diagram’s axes are misleading. Don Scott explains the minor tweaks necessary to convert the HR diagram into a plot of plasma’s fundamental operating modes, and illustrates how this slight adjustment resolves numerous stellar observations which are enigmatic to the conventional thermonuclear model:

But, of course, a person would have to concern themselves with the observed behavior of laboratory plasmas in order to fully grasp how simple this competing model is. A person has to be willing to imagine that conventional theory is wrong before they can grasp the link between the Sun and plasma physics fundamentals.

Ultimately, what’s most compelling about the electric sun model is that the model can be tested against the observed behavior of a glow discharge, as explained within engineering textbooks — like JD Cobine’s “Gaseous Conductors”.

Those who take the time to pursue this avenue of investigation will find that the Sun’s behavior can be fully explained with laboratory plasma physics. Arguments that we cannot see the Sun’s power source — its electron drift — are disingenuous because measuring an electron drift would not be a simple matter to begin with.

The decision to completely ignore the fact that we can create a completely functional and new solar model — an electric sun model — as Don Scott has attempted to do, is a decision which will ultimately come to haunt conventional thinkers. This is time lost for all of us, guys. We’re spinning our wheels, for the sole reason that the theorists are preferring certain inferences over others.

The public expects these models to be built. They do not care who started the work. They want functional, predictive solar models — not ad hoc models. And so long as theorists continue to ignore the vital role that this electron drift plays, as evidenced by the magnetic field which they observe, the solar models will continue to perplex them.

LazyTeenager says:
December 22, 2010 at 8:45 am
“Scooter says
A) TSI is ‘assumed’ constant so some folks say there is no impact on climate
—————-
TSI is measured to be constant; no assumptions required.”

Robin Kool says:
December 22, 2010 at 3:46 amDid UV decrease or increase?
The graph shows the difference between UV in 2007 and 2004. This difference is positive, hence UV [the near UV not the extreme UV] increased from 2004 to 2007.

Richard P says:
December 22, 2010 at 9:32 amI have never seen any reference in climate modeling that shows the effects of the Solar Cycle. We are told over and over that the sun does not matter! When did this change and now solar variability is part of the global climate equation? Every climate model I have seen, showed an increase in global temp through the solar cycles without even a blip.
Solar activity has always been in the climate models. That you haven’t seen this is because you haven’t looked. The reason you haven’t heard much about it is that the influence of the Sun is so small [but definitely there] that it doesn’t make any significant difference compared to the other changes.

The North Magnetic Pole was at 81.3°N 110.8°W﻿ in 2001. In 2010, it is located at 84.97°N and 132.35°W. It has been reported that the wandering pole is moving toward Russia at 40 miles per year.

Since earth’s magnetic north and dynamic core are shifting and these are tied to the sun’s magnetic field and orbital forcing, it would seem that regional climate would change to due to the changes in the position of magnetic north. Europe and parts of Asia will be closer to magnetic north and become colder as it advances to Siberia.

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 22, 2010 at 9:59 amThe graph shows the difference between UV in 2007 and 2004. This difference is positive, hence UV [the near UV not the extreme UV] increased from 2004 to 2007.

On the other hand, the NASA release states:
“However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.”

This is the opposite of the graph so no wonder there is some confusion…
I’m trying myself to make sense of the various graphs that Jerry Harder presents. Here are some more: http://www.agci.org/dB/PPTs/10S1_0615_JHarder.pdf [see slide 6]
Like, what is the interpretation of ‘difference between 2004 to 2007′ ?
The obvious one is difference = value in 2007 – value in 2004. But what if they actually mean difference = value in 2004 – value in 2007 ? If they mean that, then there would be nothing earth-shaking about the UV, it just behaved as expected. What do y’all think?

Leif has mentioned this solar inclusion model fact several times on WUWT in the past. Thanks to his generous sharing and suggested links from several others, most of us who read up on these things have known that solar influences are part of computer climate models. The models I think have this one right. Not so much other parameters and variables though.

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 22, 2010 at 10:03 amThe reason you haven’t heard much about it is that the influence of the Sun is so small [but definitely there] that it doesn’t make any significant difference compared to the other changes.
WOW!…so that shiny round thing above us in the sky it is just an ornament?

The reason you haven’t heard much about it is that the influence of the Sun is so small [but definitely there] that it doesn’t make any significant difference compared to the other changes.

Leif, that is because the models only take into account the TSI/4 changes and assume that 1 W/m2 change in insolation has the same effect as 1 W/m2 change in IR absorption by CO2. But solar (UV) has effects in the stratosphere, including changes in jet stream position (clouds, rain patterns), not seen by increased GHGs, and an inverse correlation with low cloud cover (whatever the mechanism behind it). Thus the influence may be much more than currently implied in the climate models. Some interesting literature:http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL024393.shtml
or subscription free:http://www.somas.stonybrook.edu/downloads/pubs/hameed/HameedLee.pdf

It my interesting highly opinionated observation, over the course of reading many climate blogs, that the warm-earther theorists (aka “modelers”) seem to always dismiss instrumental data that does not agree with their speculations (that’s what a model really involves, after all — unsubstantiated speculation in search of grant money) as being due to a fault of the instrument. Although it is likely, on the other hand, that the Establishment’s instruments are usually set up to measure those parameters that are called for to substantiate said models.

I think I’m right in saying that the level of solar activity is in the models just as Leif says but it is limited to simple TSI which changes hardly at all.

What is not in the models is any accurate representation of changes in the composition of photons, wavelengths and particles coming from the sun. That is what this article is just beginning to consider.

Nor any representation of the variable atmospheric responses to changes in that composition over long periods of time.

Nor any representation of differential warming and cooling at different levels in the atmosphere attributable to such changes in composition.

Nor any representation as to how the net latitudinal position of the air circulation systems changes beyond normal seasonal variability over multiple decades or centuries.

Nor any direct link between the size and intensity of the polar vortices in response to those changes in composition.

“Leif Svalgaard says:
December 22, 2010 at 9:59 am
The graph shows the difference between UV in 2007 and 2004. This difference is positive, hence UV [the near UV not the extreme UV] increased from 2004 to 2007.”
=================================

A decrease was expected, and the black line gives positive values. So points above the 0-line (=positive values) must mean decrease.
The vertical axis should have been named: ‘AMOUNT OF DECREASE in spectral irradiation′.
The graph thus shows much more decrease in UV than expected and a slight INCREASE (=negative value) in visible light.

2. Leif’s statement, that a decrease for UV was expected and an increase was measured, creates a problem.
Whatever the vertical axis exactly means, an increase and a decrease in UV should be on opposing sides of the 0-line.
Right?

Leif Svalgaard says:
“Solar activity has always been in the climate models. That you haven’t seen this is because you haven’t looked. The reason you haven’t heard much about it is that the influence of the Sun is so small [but definitely there] that it doesn’t make any significant difference compared to the other changes.”

Lief, my issue is this, if indeed the solar cycles are a part of the model, how then are they expressed? Now, I have not seen every climate model, nor have I attempted the reverse statistical analysis on the data output. But, I would expect that if the solar cycles were reflected in the model there should some their influence in the output. Yet when I look at the model averages as issued by the IPPC, and others this signal is absent.

In my job as an engineer I gather data on appliance systems in actual field usage. My data showed that a refrigerator did not respond to door open and close cycles. The people that designed the control system did not believe it. However, it was later found that the algorithm severely suppressed the monitoring thermistor, to the point that the thermistor was almost superfluous. So for all intents and purposes the thermistor was removed from the control system and the refrigerator would run fine with a resistor in its place.

So, while yes the solar cycle may be in the model, if it is essentially removed, is it any different than not being there at all? And given the outputs of the models (at least the ones I have seen) do not vary for solar cycle effects how can you say they are there? Thus, an input that is significantly suppressed is probably not an input at all.

Here is a screen shot of LASP’s SIM page [interactive tool]
I have selected a wavelength a wavelength in the near UV. For that wavelength there is a good anti-correlation between UV and solar activity [rather the time variation is opposite]. Most of the energy in the UV is, of course, in the near UV.

It occurs to me that this is another PIT (point in time) as significant as Harry Read me (please) file last year. However, I speak from the analogue period whilst the majority of you who contribute here are digital, so to speak.

In other words, I applaud the efforts of everyone here, even though I comprehend about 10%. People, I trust most of you and that’s about as close as an Englishman gets to saying “Er, I think I, er, I might just have, erm, y’know erm, feelings, er, for you.”

Richard P says:
December 22, 2010 at 11:44 amif indeed the solar cycles are a part of the model, how then are they expressed?
The basic input is radiation from the Sun. This varies with the distance to the Sun [a lot 7%] and with the solar cycle [a lot less, 0.1%]. UV is a part of that input. All of this goes into the model as they must. For the verification of the models, actual measured solar radiation is used. For the future evolution, we don’t have observed solar radiation, but instead the model use the typical solar cycle behavior from the past to represent the solar input. One can also play ‘what if’ questions with this: crank up the cycle and see what happens.
Whatever one does, the effect of the solar variations are so small that they hardly show up in the modeled output, e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/4.04_Cahalan_atmos_model.pdf

Moderator said, “REPLY: We are constantly pulling your comments out of the spam filter, may I suggest a different writing style?”

Moderator,

Sure, maybe it is the use of blockquotes?

John

[(Different mod here.) WordPress uses an algorithm that puts some comments in the spam folder based on certain words and phrases. They don’t tell us what those words are. Sorry for the inconvenience. If your comment doesn’t appear in a reasonable amount of time, post a request to check the spam folder. ~dbs]

Stephen Wilde says:
December 22, 2010 at 11:16 amWhat is not in the models is any accurate representation of changes in the composition of photons, wavelengths and particles coming from the sun.
The models do not have ‘representations’ of anything, but calculate from basic physics equations how the system evolves. The time step is of the order of five minutes, so from the current state the differential equations are integrated five minutes into the future to get the next state, etc. This is similar to how one calculates planetary orbits. They are not ‘represented’, but starting from an observed state the equations of the law(s) of gravity are integrated over a time step to the next moment in time.

I had to drill down to Robin Kool to find the explanation that suited me for the supposed discrepancy. The graph plots the difference between 2007 and 2004 values. What’s not made clear on the graph is whether values above the x axis mean that:

(a) 2004 values are greater than 2007 (not contradicted by “2004 to 2007″ at the top of the graph) or that:

(b) 2007 values are greater than 2004.

OK, so there is ambiguity in the labelling of the graph, which is a shame, but it’s clear from the body of the report that it is the first of these that is being used.

Are not the data compatible with a slight (?) surface cooling, with a decrease in overall irradiance (yes, decrease), but a shift from uv visible and ir , as expected from the equation that relates absolute temperature to frequency?

John Whitman says:
December 22, 2010 at 10:45 amSo I am slightly confused.
Me too. Harder does a poor job of presenting this.

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
December 22, 2010 at 11:02 amLeif, that is because the models only take into account the TSI/4 changes and assume that 1 W/m2 change in insolation has the same effect as 1 W/m2 change in IR absorption by CO2. But solar (UV) has effects in the stratosphere
I’m tired of pointing out that changes in UV and chemistry in the stratosphere are very much part of the models.

sciencebod says:
December 22, 2010 at 12:40 pmOK, so there is ambiguity in the labelling of the graph, which is a shame, but it’s clear from the body of the report that it is the first of these that is being used.
Except if you actually plot the integrated flux between 242 and 300 nm [from the very same source] and shown in my plots at the top of this article, it is clear that the reported UV has increased.
Here is a screen shot of LASP’s SIM page [interactive tool]
showing the flux near 300 nm.

Pamela Gray says:
December 22, 2010 at 1:12 pmLeif, tis kinda like responding ad infinitum ad nauseum to a toddler who is stuck on “why”.
The difference is that the toddler eventually gets it. [‘whys’ are generally good].

Richard P says: “Lief, my issue is this, if indeed the solar cycles are a part of the model…”

TSI data is represented in AR4 to be part of the GCMs. In their Supplementary Materials to Chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”, the IPCC identifies the TSI reconstructions used by the modelers in their table “S9.1. Models used in chapter 9 to evaluate simulations of 20th century climate change with both anthropogenic and natural forcings and with natural forcings only”.http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9-supp-material.pdf
The following is S9.1:
XXXXXXX
The following is the IPCC’s Key to the Solar forcings and references from page SM.9-12 of the Supplement to Chapter 9 of AR4:
####
SOL = solar irradiance

Stephen Wilde failed to answer, so I will repeat previous posters’ question because we need to know this basic fact before we can proceed to hypothesise at all, at all.

Under the graph [which appears to show an increase in UV] is written: “Between 2004 and 2007, the Solar Irradiance Monitor (blue line) measured a decrease in ultraviolet radiation (less than 400 nanometers) that was a factor of four to six larger than expected (black line).

Leif Svalgaard comments at the end of the article:
“This is legit. It is a confusing graph. It shows how much the spectral emission has
changed between 2004 and 2007. Since solar activity was decreasing one
expected UV to decrease. Instead [UV] increased.”

Leif Svalgaard says:
“Solar activity has always been in the climate models. That you haven’t seen this is because you haven’t looked. The reason you haven’t heard much about it is that the influence of the Sun is so small [but definitely there] that it doesn’t make any significant difference compared to the other changes.”

Lief, my issue is this, if indeed the solar cycles are a part of the model, how then are they expressed? Now, I have not seen every climate model, nor have I attempted the reverse statistical analysis on the data output. But, I would expect that if the solar cycles were reflected in the model there should some their influence in the output. Yet when I look at the model averages as issued by the IPPC, and others this signal is absent

###########

the solar forcings are available for you to look at. Yes the cycles are represented. TSI varies as a function of time ( the Lean dataset is use) The reason you dont see that cycle repeated in the output is:
1. the peak to peak variation is small.
2. There are other forcings ( internal and external) that swamp the signal.

The standard “skeptical” argument is that the sun effects the climate in more ways than just TSI. That may be true. That may be false. To test that someone would have to come forward with an actual theory ( something that could be put in code).

However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.

but Leif’s graphs clearly show UV increasing

Yet I would logically expect UV to decrease and IR to increase when the solar energy / output falls, just as Sun emits UV but Earth can only emit IR.

“If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.
It would also imply that the sun’s contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates.
So that means all the science pre AGW 1958 is junk.
All the low sunspot counts from the time of Galileo which coincided with cool periods on earth are now suspect, hundreds of years of science and many eminent scientists should be discounted, on what evidence, from a third rate paper and from third rate scientists.

Lucy Skywalker says:
December 22, 2010 at 1:29 pmDid UV decrease or increase from 2004-2007?
Part of the confusion [apart from the confusing graphs] stems from the fact that UV is not a ‘uniform’ simply beast, but varies with wavelength. So you can have a decrease at one wavelength and an increase at another. If UV in band A decreased by 0.01 W/m2 and in band B increased by 18 W/m2, did ‘UV’ increase or decrease? From a climate point of view the UV from 242-310 nm [green oval] is where the heating of the tropical stratosphere takes place: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Heating-UV.png so the interesting part of the UV spectrum is from 242-310 nm and there the SIM people report that integrated UV increased [i.e. goes inversely with solar activity]: http://www.leif.org/research/Erl70.png
At shorter wavelength, UV decreased, but the energy down there is minuscule, and its heating effect [see first link] minute.
Harder has done a poor job presenting his work.

Re: “The standard “skeptical” argument is that the sun effects the climate in more ways than just TSI. That may be true. That may be false. To test that someone would have to come forward with an actual theory ( something that could be put in code).”

See Gerrit Verschuur’s work. He demonstrates that the interstellar medium is permeated by extremely filamentary (spaghetti-like) hydrogen, as apparent from observing HI hydrogen at 21 cm. Conventional theorists propose that these are “clouds,” but Verschuur — who is a radio astronomer making the actual observations — is adamant that the term “cloud” is inappropriate because they are twisting, knotted filaments akin to what is observed in a novelty plasma globe.

So, why aren’t these structures just indications of shock waves? If you observe their redshifts, you will notice that many of these structures exhibit redshifts which suggest that the objects are moving far too quickly given their location. The most common anomalous redshift exists at 35 km/s, but there also exists redshifts at 50 km/s and 13 km/s.

These redshifts are notable because they validate the prediction by Hannes Alfven many decades ago that critical ionization velocities would be observed in space. A CIV occurs within the laboratory when you slam a beam of charged particles into a cloud of neutral gas. In the process, the neutral cloud of gas gets ionized, and the emission is associated with the CIV’s of the *neutral* matter. 50 km/s, 35 km/s, 13 km/s and 6 km/s cover the CIV’s of the universe’s most common elements.

When you see CIV’s affiliated with filaments in space, this strongly suggests that you are observing plasmas conducting electrical current.

The movement of these charged particles constitutes an additional power input which is surely not being factored into your models, because the conventional plasma models ignore all of our laboratory observations of plasmas, and suppose that plasmas are dominated fundamentally by gravitational forces. While idealized to the sterile universe which the Big Bang theory demands, the non-electromagnetic plasma models are completely hypothetical. They have no basis in laboratory experimentation. After all, plasmas which exist within an ambient magnetic field can ignore gravitational forces with less than 1% ionization!

I’m quite sure that you will ignore all of this. But, the rest of you guys who are still open-minded on these issues should read Verschuur’s extensive publications on this topic. With a little background research on Marklund Convection, like from Anthony Peratt’s plasma physics textbook, it’s even possible to get a handle on the rotational geometry from which the CIV’s derive.

To be clear, this theory is completely testable, as plasma filaments should naturally sort elements radially in a specific order. And since galaxies are really two twisting Birkeland Currents, the sorting should manifest in galaxies as well. If you look at the hydrogen profile for galaxies, you will see some unusual sorting which is easily explained with these plasma-based cosmologies.

I’m tired of pointing out that changes in UV and chemistry in the stratosphere are very much part of the models.

Yes, but the models underestimate the effects, be it directly (as is pointed to in this article) by underestimating the change in UV, or indirectly the effect of such changes on feedbacks, like cloud cover and/or cloud patterns and the (in)direct influence on sea surface temperature.

The first point is Harder vs. Lean about 10:1, while most GCM’s are based on Lean.

Then take from your reference:

Next Steps:
Include stratospheric chemistry & circulation (see Haigh, also Stolarski)
Which are not included in the first runs???

But the real changes at the sea surface in the tropics are much larger at +/- 0.5 K within 3-4 years (probably caused by changes in cloud cover), but I don’t find the reference back. If even a small change is sustained over several cycles, the influence would be felt globally, far beyond the TSI change.

Further from:http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdfNevertheless, our main conclusion, that models underestimate the climatic response to solar forcing [note: factor 2 for the HadCM3 model, within the constraints of the model], is supported by two other detection studies that used diagnostics tailored for the 11-yr solar cycle. Hill et al. (2001) showed that models underestimate the tropospheric temperature response to solar forcing by a factor of 2 to 3 and North and Wu (2001) found an underestimate of about 2 for near-surface temperatures.

If the models do take account of changes in the sun then they can’t be much good 50 or 100 years projected into the future as we don’t know what the sun is going to do in that time.

I also have trouble with this: “The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate.”
They do? I thought the mechanism was that the surface gets heated by that radiation which then heats the lower atmosphere by conduction and convection.

Judith Lean seems keen to dismiss these measurements as instrument error. So NASA flys instruments into space and has no good data on possible drifts etc?
Yeah actually I’ll believe that having been periphery involved in one NASA CF.

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
December 22, 2010 at 2:42 pmNext Steps:
Include stratospheric chemistry & circulation (see Haigh, also Stolarski)
Which are not included in the first runs???
There are models and models. The models discussed here are ad-hoc ‘what-if’ models trying to understand recent observations. Not the massive climate models that take months to run on super computers.

The issue is not if the models are any good, but just the claim by some that the models didn’t even try to include solar effects. I’m not defending the models as such, just pointing out that these things are not ignored.

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 22, 2010 at 4:53 pm“What is ‘thermal IR’?”
Thanks, one learns something new everyday.
Then, on the other hand, the solar input at those wavelengths is very small. The ‘thermal’ refers to what the Earth puts out.

Stephen Wilde says: December 22, 2010 at 11:16 am
I think I’m right in saying that the level of solar activity is in the models just as Leif says but it is limited to simple TSI which changes hardly at all.
What is not in the models is any accurate representation of changes in the composition of photons, wavelengths and particles coming from the sun. That is what this article is just beginning to consider.

I agree. What I find digestively unpalatable is Schmidts remark. If these data are contrary to the assumptions of the models, then he jumps to the illogical conclusion essentially, that it’s warming worse than expected. However, from what Willis observed in his recent post concerning the assumed factors in models, and the divergence in observations from the model output, I deduce an even greater increase in model uncertainty. In other words, the models incorrectly account for the differences in wavelength effect, probably with an inverted effect.

Tim Clark says:
December 22, 2010 at 5:40 pmthe assumed factors in models
Educate me about what those assumed factor are. As I understand it, the climate models integrate a set a differential equations describing the physics [as we know it] governing the climate. No factors need be assumed other than known fundamental physical constants. If I’m missing something, please tell me what those ‘factors’ might be and how you deduced that there are such factors. Did you study the source code carefully or what?

To try to understand the GISSE model, I got the forcings used for the GISSE simulation. I took the total forcings, and I compared them to the GISSE model results. The forcings were yearly averages, so I compared them to the yearly results of the GISSE model. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the GISSE model hindcast temperatures and a linear regression of those temperatures on the total forcings.

And assumptions are exactly what this entire thread is all about. Model calculations based on assumed solar uv output.

“If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

And closer to the point, if the models use physics as we know it and yet are demonstrably falsified by observations (there have been many, many threads here and elsewhere illustrating the divergence of temps and the model ensemble output), then you tell me what is incorrect in the models, the physics of CO2, adiabatic lapse rate, well-mixed atsmosphere, etc.

Tim Clark says:
December 22, 2010 at 6:23 pmTo try to understand the GISSE model, I got the forcings used for the GISSE simulation.
These are not ‘assumed factors’, but represent the values of the input variables describing the past, solar radiation, volcanism, etc.

Tim Clark says:
December 22, 2010 at 6:50 pmthen you tell me what is incorrect in the models, the physics of CO2, adiabatic lapse rate, well-mixed atsmosphere, etc.
Perhaps the notion that the climate is predictable at all.

Top of atmosphere only. At the bottom of the column it fluctuates tremendously. Antarctica is the least variable. And even at TOA it is not constant but rather the measured variation is small and assumed to be insignificant. However, this data indicates that while TSI variation is small individual frequency bands vary out of phase with each other by a significant amount and where they mostly cancel each other due to being 180 degrees out of phase leaving TSI almost unchanged. Since different components of the atmosphere respond differently to different frequency domains it becomes significant in its effect on climate.

“I thought the mechanism was that the surface gets heated by that radiation which then heats the lower atmosphere by conduction and convection.”

The sun heats the ocean. The ocean heats the atmosphere. It heats it by conduction, convection, condensation, and radiation. Don’t forget the upwelling radiation is mostly all thermal infrared where water vapor absorbs very well and to a much lesser extent the non-condensing greenhouse gases CO2 and methane.

Tim Clark says:
December 22, 2010 at 6:50 pmthen you tell me what is incorrect in the models, the physics of CO2, adiabatic lapse rate, well-mixed atsmosphere, etc.
Perhaps the notion that the climate is predictable at all.

Yes Dave I know that but the way the sentence read it implied that incoming shortwave visible and IR was directly absorbed by the atmosphere, thus heating it which isn’t the major mechanism in the lower tropopause.

Richard Sharpe says:
December 22, 2010 at 9:06 pmSurely it is predictable within a reasonably narrow range, say ~20 C.
To be useful, the range must be much narrower, say ~1 C. Your 20 C is not reasonable.

and played with it a little. At the 308.5 you used, UV rises. BUT, at 300 it is darned near flat. And, at 250, it’s dropping like a rock.

So, my take on things is:

1) You are right, lousy job of presentation of findings.
2) Don’t use 308.5 to test his words ;-) It’s 250 that drops…

footnote: Need to learn to do screencaps on PC with MS Windoz…

Given this, I’d say that UV does drop and in part of the band where your chart shows absorption / heating (IFF I’ve read it correctly and the “O3 band” is showing warming via that whiter spot). I’d further speculate that this has implications for ozone, but don’t know what those would be…

I was about to assert that 308+ would show rises, but did a ‘spot check’ on 400 just to make sure I wasn’t leaping to unwarranted conclusions, and fell off a cliff of conclusion… 400 is also dropping while 700 makes a “hump’ of rising then falling.

OK, we’ve got a complex distribution of variation by frequency. So the paper is correct to say “UV Dropped” but very unclear about exactly WHICH UV and does the average as a whole drop (and in what bands and with what ‘shapes’ and…)

BTW, this is in keeping with what my skin has reported. I’ve had a much lower incidence and severity of sunburn the last couple of years. ( I have ‘the Redhead Gene’, so I sunburn if I’m out at high noon for more than 20 minutes in the summer. I’ve been out MUCH longer with no issue in the last couple of years. The UV that causes me to burn is definitely reduced.)

Hope this helps, and may folks have fun playing with different wavelengths and making a proper 3 D chart out of things…

E.M.Smith says:
December 23, 2010 at 3:15 amAt the 308.5 you used, UV rises. BUT, at 300 it is darned near flat. And, at 250, it’s dropping like a rock.
1) You are right, lousy job of presentation of findings.
2) Don’t use 308.5 to test his words ;-) It’s 250 that drops…
You need to pay attention to the amount of UV at each frequency. For 308.5 nm it is 0.650 W/m2/nm, but for 250 nm the energy is 11 times less, only 0.056 W/m2/nm. So it doesn’t matter much that that tiny bit is dropping.

What heats the atmosphere is the band between 242 and 310 nm:

It is a bit tedious but you have to add up the energy for each nm going up from 242 to 310, and look at how that varies: http://www.leif.org/research/Erl70.png
This is then the trend in the UV that heats the atmosphere.

EUV (26-34nm) is where the action is. EUV is the major contributor when considering Thermsophere height and ozone creation. However small this part of the spectrum is in relation to TSI, it has huge climate ramifications.

EUV is not rising like the graphs shown, in fact the levels this minimum are 15 % lower than the previous minimum…at present the EUV levels are very low which correlate with the negative ocean and atmosphere oscillations.

la Gray says:
December 22, 2010 at 9:17 am
..What gets to the top of our heads is a whole nother set of maths with so many variables you would run out of letters in the expression.
~
This whole light thing is easy in an oversimplistic view. Increase the density of the “parabolic exclusion boudary” at 1AU the the Earth orbits through in it yearly. If the density of, dust, H, He, O, (Ne Arg C ) increases in this region, the amount of light reaching earths surface will be more diffuse.

Letters of expression..
Vuks you may be interested in these..

•Report
Identifying the Driver of Pulsating Aurora
Received for publication 3 June 2010.
Accepted for publication 19 August 2010.
Y. Nishimura1,2,*, J. Bortnik1, W. Li1, R. M. Thorne1, L. R. Lyons1, V. Angelopoulos3,4,5, S. B. Mende4, J. W. Bonnell4, O. Le Contel6, C. Cully7, R. Ergun8 and U. Auster9
Abstract
Pulsating aurora, a spectacular emission that appears as blinking of the upper atmosphere in the polar regions, is known to be excited by modulated, downward-streaming electrons. Despite its distinctive feature, identifying the driver of the electron precipitation has been a long-standing problem. Using coordinated satellite and ground-based all-sky imager observations from the THEMIS mission, we provide direct evidence that a naturally occurring electromagnetic wave, lower-band chorus, can drive pulsating aurora. Because the waves at a given equatorial location in space correlate with a single pulsating auroral patch in the upper atmosphere, our findings can also be used to constrain magnetic field models with much higher accuracy than has previously been possiblehttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6000/81.abstract

Maybe someone can comment on the different types of magnetic reconnection that is occurring on the dayside magnetosphere? Magnetic reconnection occurring all along the wavy magnetopause is what my oversimplistic view keeps finding. Must be similar at the heliospheric boundary too, except the added (I mean more events of) SWCX. (solar wind charge exchange) which also occurs at the dayside of earth.

Dayside auroral activity as a possible precursor of substorm
onsets: A survey using Polar ultraviolet imagery
K. Liou, P. T. Newell, C.-I. Meng, and A. T. Y. Lui
Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Laurel, Maryland
M. Brittnacher and G. Parks
Geophysics Program, University of Washington, Seattle
Abstract. We have analyzed the dayside auroral oval, with particular emphasis on
the postnoon aurorally active region, prior to the onset of isolated substorms using
images acquired from the ultraviolet imager (UVI) on board the Polar spacecraft.
The UVI data set used for this investigation covers a time of approximately 3
months, from March 30 to July 13 in 1996. It is found that dayside auroral ”hot
spots” were active in 70 out of 95 surveyed substorm events at least 15 min before
the onset, while 25 cases did not involve the dayside bright spots at all. Of the 70
cases with dayside activity during substorms, 51 cases of the dayside events were
found to be spatially confined and showed little discernible changes prior to an
active substorm onset, while only six cases were found to be in association with
apparent eastward propagation through the dusk sector to the nightside prior to a
substorm onset. This statistical result indicates that most of the postnoon bright
spots are spatially confined in longitude and that only a few candidate cases are
possibly associated with substorms triggering. It also suggests that dayside auroral
bright spots are distinct features from the nightside auroral substorms. These
results suggest that the physical processes responsible for the dayside auroral
bright spots are different from those responsible for the nightside substorm activity.http://sd-www.jhuapl.edu/Aurora/polar_MDI_team/FUV_papers/liou97a.pdf

They are suggestion two separate reconnection processes occurring here and there may be more.

Wondering aloud..
If the intensity of a solar storm can drive aurora towards the equator, do we know when and if they have ever crossed pole to pole? North aurora to the south pole, South aurora to the North pole? In 1957 aurora seen from the Mediterrean region and other southern latitude reports. Carrington event 100 years earlier and very low low latitude aurora reported. And the temp effect on earths magnetic field. .

Carla says:
December 23, 2010 at 6:35 amdo we know when and if they have ever crossed pole to pole?
Never did, never will.

Ulric Lyons says:
December 23, 2010 at 8:39 amHot stuff radiates.
The solar wind plasma cannot radiate due to being hot [even though it has a temperature of 100,000 degrees]. Radiation occurs when electrons transition from one quantum level to another, and in a fully ionized plasma like the solar wind, there are no bound electrons sitting at quantum levels. The electrons are all free, hence do not radiate no matter how hot they are.

Ulric Lyons says:
December 23, 2010 at 11:18 amStill, it can cause warming where it can enter..
The ‘hot’ plasma does not heat anything. The auroral heating is caused by electric currents coming from the night-side due to particles accelerated by the electric fields induced by magnetic field lines returning to Earth after having been stretched to their breaking point by the solar wind flowing down outside of the tail. All these images and words are descriptive only, but the format of WUWT does not itself to the mathematical treatment necessary for a more ‘correct’ or deeper explanation. Sometimes images are good enough if they capture the essence of a process.

“However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.

The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.”

Looks like the post was garbled. This says UV is down and visible and infrared is up with little net change in TSI!!!

Leif Svalgaard says:
E.M.Smith says:
“At the 308.5 you used, UV rises. BUT, at 300 it is darned near flat. And, at 250, it’s dropping like a rock.
1) You are right, lousy job of presentation of findings.
2) Don’t use 308.5 to test his words ;-) It’s 250 that drops… ”
You need to pay attention to the amount of UV at each frequency. For 308.5 nm it is 0.650 W/m2/nm, but for 250 nm the energy is 11 times less, only 0.056 W/m2/nm. So it doesn’t matter much that that tiny bit is dropping.

Leif, you are a hard man to agree with!

I’ll just note: I said “you are right”. Note the SMILEY after the 308.5 comment, it’s ment to indicate that there was an “issue” with the words such that they need some kind of a ‘cherry pick’ to be valid, and you had gone elsewhere to sample the orchard…

OK, I’ve gone back to the SORCE data page as I’ve now got just a bit of time (before I start making Christmas Dinner preparations / prework)

In looking at a variety of ranges I’ve found very complex changes in output. Such that the words in the report become a simplification of way to much. I’ll not mention all the frequencies I put in to the request (partly as the site changes them to “something else it likes” anyway and partly because some were “uninteresting”. If I get a chance, I’ll download a set of images and put them up in a page, as this really needs a visual treatement. (What it really really needs is a 3 D graph of Power, Year, Frequency… )

Instead, for each point of frequency I’m going to give a simple 1 or 2 word description:

115.5 Drops. 2.4 e-5 to 1.8 e-5 in 2009, then slight rise to 2 e-5
150.5 Drops. 9 e-5 to 7.75 e-5 in 2009, then slight rise to 8 e-5
190.5 Drops. 0.00415 to 0.00390 in 2009 then rise to 0.0040
250.5 Large Drop. 0.0580 to 0.0555 in 2008 then rise to 0.0565

300.5 “Flat Hump”. 0.352 in 2003 to 0.356 in 2004, then 0.352-0.354 oscillator from 2005-2010. About Oct 2010 takes abrief ‘plunge’ to 0.346 and back to 0354.

305.5 Rise to flat. 0.600 – 0.610 in 2007-2010 with spikes to 0.615, then DROP to 0.605 with spikes down to 0.595.

308.5 Rise (the one you hit) 0.635 – 0.655 in 2010-Feb then drop to 0.645

310.02 Drops. 0.535 to 0.52 in 2010-about June, recent gap / jump up to 0.530
(really look at the graph on that one, the lead in and exit look more nearly the same with just some “spikes” different and I’m weighting the numbers to sort of average the spikes. It’s mostly a drop and recent return to “normal”)

320.06 Drops. 0.752 to 0.738 in 2007-2009, then slight rise to 0.745. Recent “gap up” to “near normal” of 0.748 in about November 2010

I included that last one in UVB even though the xxx.06 put it over the line. Since folks sunburn based on UVB, it kind of matters to me…

UVA 320-400

320.06 (as above)

329.90 Drops. 1.035 to 1.020 in 2007. Oscillates 1.020-1.025 to 2010, rise to 1.030 in November. (This one, too, looks like some kind of glitch / step function higher in about October / November…)

350.01 “Sag”. 0.987 to 0.980 (with ‘spikes’ down of 0.977) to 2008, slow rise back to 0.986 with oscillations until November 2010 “gap up” 0.988 – 0.990.

369.69 Big Rise Sags from 2004-2007 at 1.220-1.215, then rapid rise to 1.222+/- 2 then November “gap up” to 1.226

380 Near Flat 2004-2008 at 1.875 -1.190 oscillator. Rounds into a rolling rise to 1.194 then November ‘glitch’ and a spike to 1.202 drop to 1.192.

389.75 Drops. 0.177 to 0.168 in 2010. November “glitch” spike to 1.180 back to 1.175

399.79 Drops. 1.675 to 1.597. November “glitch” spike at 1.615 back to 1.610

That’s the end of the UVA, B, C set.

It’s pretty clear that something “complex” is going on and a 3 D graph is what is really needed. (Gee, I think I heard that somewhere before ;-)

Also of note, the set starts and ends with a drop. The middle has a bit of a rise. I have no idea what the “average power change” might be, but would guess from the number of “drop” vs “rise” and that some are on the “higher power side” of the rise points, it’s probably a drop (in keeping with the written words) but I’d not stand by that statement without “doing the math’ on the data download.

I note in passing that while the dermatology site said UV went to 400 nm the Wiki on visible light says “Violet” starts at 380 and goes to 450 so “YMMV” …

FWIW, the 420 Graph is a ‘rocket ride’ up. From 1.750 1.756, then the November ‘glitch’ and were at 1.760 now. So those violets in the flower garden ought to look particularly pleasing ;-) though the 450 range is ‘nearly flat hump’ until November when it “glitches” and jumps from 2.065 to 2.070.

I wonder what happened in November… (and note: That is an “eyeball” November so could easily be October… or…)

In Conclusion: Leif, I’m agreeing with you. The write up / press release is a lousy way to present a 3 D power graph. I’m just also adding some more data points and saying “needs a 3 D power graph”…

Though, having done the extra graphs above, I’d now add “and it looks like, depending on where you call ‘uv’, it could actually be dropping overall” and my skin agrees.

Parting Note: 500 nm (green) rises nicely 1.953 – 1.959 and 700 nm (red) does a “hump” with 1.4124 to 1.4135 in 2005 back to 1.4117 in 2010 then “glitch” and back at 1.4125. That walk in the garden could be an interesting thing. More greens and violets, a briefly higher reds… ;-)

What’s very clear from all of this is that the various colors each respond differently. There is undoubtedly a lot that can be learned from that, but it’s going to take a lot of effort by some very clever folks. It would be interesting to look at individual color lines for individual atomic species and see if anything interesting is visible there and it would also be interesting to see if this varies by depth in the sun. Corona vs surface vs… But ‘Ol Sol is not just sitting still. There’s stuff changing in there…

“Parting Note: 500 nm (green) rises nicely 1.953 – 1.959 and 700 nm (red) does a “hump” with 1.4124 to 1.4135 in 2005 back to 1.4117 in 2010 then “glitch” and back at 1.4125. That walk in the garden could be an interesting thing. More greens and violets, a briefly higher reds… ;-) ”

Like I said:

the sky becomes a little less bright when the sun is more active
because less energy is coming in at visible wavelengths (but more at higher
energies such as invisible UV). Similarly when the sun is less active the sky
becomes a little brighter because more energy is coming in at visible
wavelengths (but less at higher energies such as invisible UV).
I have seen some anecdotal reports that some sensitive individuals (including me) see the light at times of an active sun to be ‘harsher’ or more ‘contrasty’ with a more deeply blue sky and the light at times of a less active sun to be more diffuse with a less
deeply blue sky.

E.M.Smith says:
December 24, 2010 at 5:45 amLeif, you are a hard man to agree with!
Good that you took a hard look. One thing to remember is that what the Earth sees is the integrated effect of all this complexity, so at least some simplification is possible.

Stephen Wilde says:
December 24, 2010 at 6:07 amLeif, do you still see everything that supports my contentions as mere ‘confirmation bias’ ?
Show me some stuff that does not support your contention for some balance. My biggest problem with your model is the notion that the polar vortex is controlled from above, as it isn’t. But since that is non-support, you’ll tend to ignore that: the other side of the confirmation bias coin.

Stephen Wilde says:
December 24, 2010 at 6:07 amLeif, do you still see everything that supports my contentions as mere ‘confirmation bias’ ?
Show me some stuff that does not support your contention for some balance. My biggest problem with your model is the notion that the polar vortex is controlled from above, as it isn’t. But since that is non-support, you’ll tend to ignore that: the other side of the confirmation bias coin.

“Show me some stuff that does not support your contention for some balance.”

No need because you have been doing that job for me.

The trouble is that you ignore the fact that all the stuff that goes against my proposition is relatively short term stuff which is to be expected from a complex system involving chaotic variability and substantial internal variability.

On centennial timescales or more or when the sun produces a dramatic short term change such as that currently being observed then what we see is support for my approach.

If you can come up with a century or longer example of my proposition failing then I would be interested.

Such as , say, 100 years of poleward (or highly zonal) jets whilst the sun is as inactive as it was during the Maunder Minimum.

Or 100 years of equatorward (or highly meridional) jets whilst the sun is as active as it was during the late 20th century.

Or a 100 years of relatively warm stratosphere coinciding with poleward jets AND an active sun.

Stephen Wilde says:
December 24, 2010 at 10:38 amIt doesn’t need to be ‘controlled’ from above. Merely modulated from above
To modulate you must control at least part of the process. No control, no modulation.
Your problem with controlling at both ends is like this: imagine you have a whip which is thick at one one and tapes off to a very thin tip. Now crack the whip holding the thick end [the handle]. That works fine. Now, try to crack the whip holding the tip, that doesn’t work.

Stephen Wilde says:
December 24, 2010 at 10:50 amOr a 100 years of relatively warm stratosphere coinciding with poleward jets AND an active sun.
So you should show 100 years of just the opposite. I’m waiting…

Similar setups for all significant cool spells such as the Dalton, the Sporer, even mid 20th century cooler spell with a less active cycle 20 showed more meridional jets.

Late 20th Century warming spell with more zonal jets.

And now a sudden unexpectedly deep and extended solar minimum with, hey presto, a more negative AO than any of us has seen in our lifetimes.

And I’d bet a small sum that every time the sun was more active the stratosphere cooled (netted out globally) especially at the poles due to enhanced ozone destruction at higher levels so as to make AO more positive and pull the jets poleward but of course we cannot resolve that because we had no means of measuring stratospheric temperature trends until recently.

You may not see anything more than coincidence but for me there are just too many.

Stephen Wilde says:
December 24, 2010 at 11:48 am“Now, try to crack the whip holding the tip, that doesn’t work.”
False analogy. Try cracking a whip with a tip at both ends.
The analogy is apt, because it mirrors the density of the atmosphere and the density determines the radiative processes, because those are proportional to the number of molecules radiating.

MWP = poleward zonal jets and an active sun.
LIA = equatorward meridional jets and a quiet sun
Who said that jets were like that?

You may not see anything more than coincidence but for me there are just too many.
That is what confirmation bias is.

One of the earlier comments raised an interesting question. Can the “Gore Effect” be reasonably accounted for strictly by chance? Nature is the biggest practical joker in the Universe and we don’t include this in our models.

“The analogy is apt, because it mirrors the density of the atmosphere and the density determines the radiative processes, because those are proportional to the number of molecules radiating.”

It is not apt because it is not all about radiative processes. The issue is about chemical reactions affecting ozone quantities differentially at different levels of the atmosphere.

“MWP = poleward zonal jets and an active sun.
LIA = equatorward meridional jets and a quiet sun
Who said that jets were like that?”

I’ve previously shown you lots of anecdotal evidence. History is replete with it. Even in my lifetime that is the way it has gone with slightly equatorward jets during cycle 20, much more poleward jets through cycles 21,22 and 23 and now more equatorward in cycle 24.

Furthermore I believe it has been confirmed elsewhere that the polar vortex shrank when the sun was more active.

Stephen Wilde says:
December 25, 2010 at 2:56 amIt is not apt because it is not all about radiative processes. The issue is about chemical reactions affecting ozone quantities differentially at different levels of the atmosphere.
So your model does not deal with radiation at all, no ‘energy flow’. Just some ozone.

“So your model does not deal with radiation at all, no ‘energy flow’. Just some ozone.”

I’m coming round to the view that chemical processes involving ozone quantities responding differently at different levels to variations in the material coming from the sun are more relevant to changes in the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere than simple radiative physics.

That vertical temperature profile then dictates the heights of the layer boundaries at all levels and in affecting the height of the tropopause will affect the pressure distribution in the troposphere.

That then affects cloudiness and albedo for alterations in solar shortwave input to the oceans thereby changing the net energy budget from warming to cooling or back again periodically in tune with solar variability.

So in a sense you are right about the primacy of internal system variability BUT that internal variability arises primarily from internal system responses to slight changes in the material we receive from the sun with chemical processes dominating over radiative processes as far as surface pressure distributions are concerned.